Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:50:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Sigh. I wasn't aware that common courtesy was so rare as to require
>> explanation at length.
>
> When you start making accusations, you are obliged to back them up
> with explanations. Otherwise you are merely denying any right to
> respond, and what was that about common courtesy?
You asked for a list of posts. I provided a list of posts. You
wanted explanations. I provided them, and remarked as above because
some of your specific questions suggested an antisocial perspective.
(For example, thinking that a message reading "Troll." is not
provocative and moving the goal-posts on whether it is a put-down.)
> Besides which, none of this appears to have anything to do with
> courtesy. Most of it is you misrepresenting my statements.
>
>> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg01598.html
>> >
>> > Looks like a perfectly justified response to me. I don't see how that
>> > could be classified as 'provocation' or 'troll', because in no sense
>> > did it encourage more discussion - it was quite clearly a statement
>> > that he was being ignored because he was just trying to start an
>> > argument. I suppose you could claim it was a 'put-down', but I claim
>> > it is a factually accurate description of the parent mail and I
>> > challenge anybody to prove otherwise.
>>
>> This is an example of one of the significant limitations (perhaps
>> good, perhaps not) in Debian's current culture: A lot of people think
>> rudeness is excused -- and not just excusable -- when it saves them
>> future effort.
>
> Then I don't think you've got any grounds to accuse me of it
> specifically, and not any of the others. Regardless of whether or not
> it happens to be my belief (it isn't).
How else should I consider a mail that simply declares "Troll."? Do
you think it is not rude? Or was the point of the brevity something
besides saving yourself the effort of justifying the judgment?
Whether you consciously had that motivation or not, it comes up in
most of the semiannual "Women in Debian" flame wars.
>> The parent mail is not clearly a troll to me, and I
>> think it is preposterous to assume something is a troll until proven
>> otherwise.
>
> The parent mail is an instance of argumentum ad hominem and a claim to
> authority, combined with a straw man, on a subject which is tangential
> to the one under discussion, which is written in a clearly
> antagonistic manner and adds no new information or valid arguments. If
> that's not a troll, then what is?
When you held yourself up as knowing the security mechanisms used by
every CA, it was entirely appropriate to puncture that impression. If
you insist that martin f krafft's post was a troll, your post which he
responded to was equally a troll.
> And why are you attacking me instead?
I am attacking you because you asked me to explain my selection of
posts to illustrate when you send things that "are little more than
provocations, put-downs and trolls." If you did not want me to
elaborate on why your posts qualify, you should not have asked.
>> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00166.html
>> >
>> > I can see nothing in this mail that could be even remotely like
>> > that. Explain your claim.
>>
>> It was counterproductive in that it did not advance any discussion.
>
> Interesting definition. I have not encoutered this one before.
It is an example of counterproductive, not a definition. Inflammatory
remarks which do not also illuminate "are little more than
provocations, put-downs and trolls", and such remarks are only one way
to be counterproductive in one's discourse. I assumed that their
counterproductive nature was why you chose that description when
asking people to find objectionable posts of yours.
>> It was hypocritical in that it accused unspecified people of being
>> trolls, while complaining that *they* were resisting efforts to build
>> consensus.
>
> It provided a simple mechanism by which people could judge for
> themselves, which was the whole point. I find that far more honourable
> than listing names and accusations. I do not see how it is hypocritical.
>
>> Insults never build consensus: even when they drive away
>> individuals who disagree, they also splinter the consensus.
>
> This statement appears disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; if
> it was meant to be a point, please restate it.
It was an elaboration of why the complaint about consensus-building
was hypocritical: because the post itself worked against consensus.
Michael Poole